Will the real PHRF please stand up - Page 2 - SailNet Community
 8Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #11 of 23 Old 04-08-2019
Senior Member
 
chef2sail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 10,009
Thanks: 81
Thanked 181 Times in 173 Posts
Rep Power: 12
 
Send a message via AIM to chef2sail
Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimsCAL View Post
I couldn't disagree more. The PHRF rating gives you a quick measure of the relative sailing performance of a boat. I absolutely looked at the PHRF ratings of the boats I was considering when I bought my current boat, even though I did not plan on racing her. It is especially useful as you compare boats of about the same size.
I have to agree with Jim here. To say a PHRF rating is useless is crap.
There are many factors in buying a boat and that's one.

Earlier I Did a lot of racing and most boats PHRF ratings usually are close to acurate so being able to compare the boats can bE useful. As stated the 144 rating is the older model.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
___________________________
S/V Haleakala (Hawaiian for" House of the Sun")
C&C 35 MKIII Hull # 76
Parkville, Maryland
(photos by Joe McCary)
Charter member of the Chesapeake Lion posse

Our blog-
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


“Sailing is just the bottom line, like adding up the score in bridge. My real interest is in the tremendous game of life.”- Dennis Conner
chef2sail is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 23 Old 04-08-2019
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Narragansett Bay
Posts: 19,551
Thanks: 82
Thanked 551 Times in 528 Posts
Rep Power: 11
   
Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimsCAL View Post
I couldn't disagree more. The PHRF rating gives you a quick measure of the relative sailing performance of a boat. I absolutely looked at the PHRF ratings of the boats I was considering when I bought my current boat, even though I did not plan on racing her. It is especially useful as you compare boats of about the same size.
Differing opinions are all good. I'm curious how that worked for you. How did you actually use the information to make a decision and how disparate was the PHRF between your choices? Were you only going to buy the fastest PHRF, for example?

In my way of thinking, a few seconds difference is mythical and I would never choose one cruising boat over another for such small margins. Large speed disparities are obvious, without knowing the numbers. I'm genuinely curious how you used it to make a decision.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Jeanneau 54DS

In the harsh marine environment, something is always in need of repair. Margaritas fix everything.
Minnewaska is offline  
post #13 of 23 Old 04-08-2019
Senior Member
 
Sanduskysailor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 408
Thanks: 3
Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts
Rep Power: 12
 
Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up

Wow, misinformation galore. 102 is an appropriate rating for the 34/36+ WK. The 34/36+ also came in another version with a taller rig called the XL. There was a 3rd version called an R version with the taller rig and stripped interior, open transom, no anchor locker. C&C was going through financial difficulties in those days and would basically build the boat any way you wanted it. It is not unheard for the + versions to have a taller rig.

The original 34 is 33'8", rating 144-147, and a totally different boat. WIKI is a completely unreliable source on these boats.
Sanduskysailor is offline  
 
post #14 of 23 Old 04-08-2019
Senior Member
 
JimsCAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Glen Cove, NY
Posts: 4,463
Thanks: 5
Thanked 202 Times in 194 Posts
Rep Power: 13
 
Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnewaska View Post
Differing opinions are all good. I'm curious how that worked for you. How did you actually use the information to make a decision and how disparate was the PHRF between your choices? Were you only going to buy the fastest PHRF, for example?

In my way of thinking, a few seconds difference is mythical and I would never choose one cruising boat over another for such small margins. Large speed disparities are obvious, without knowing the numbers. I'm genuinely curious how you used it to make a decision.
I was looking at racer/cruisers in the 32-35 foot range.
As it was going to be daysailed a lot, and with the light LI Sound winds in the summer, performance was important. Boats I looked at had PHRF ratings from about 110 to 160. All were fin keel sloops, some more racer, some more cruiser. The Cal 33-2 I ended up with has a base rating of 132, on the quicker end of the range for her size. I passed on a couple of boats that rated faster, mainly because they were too much racer and more spartan than I wanted.

I certainly agree that a few seconds in rating one way or the other isn't going to drive the decision much at all. But 10 or 20 is enough to notice. And when a boat that is larger, but rates slower, that tells you something meaningful.
BarryL likes this.

S/V First Tracks
1985 Cal 33-2
JimsCAL is online now  
post #15 of 23 Old 04-08-2019
Senior Member
 
GeorgeB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Alameda, San Francisco Bay
Posts: 2,079
Thanks: 3
Thanked 68 Times in 67 Posts
Rep Power: 15
 
Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up

PHRF is a pretty simplistic formula that only considers displacement, draft, “I”, ”P”, & “E” and sail area. Below is the Northern California version of the formula:

R' = 610-8.36*(SA/Disp^.333)+0.0000511*(SA^2)-55*(P/(J+E)) -30.8*(LWL^.5)-602*(DR^2/SA)

Our formula assumes 15kt winds over the racecourse. When I plug the Southern California boats into “our” formula, I get the same results so I assume that they are using the same weights and constants. I know that the NE PHRF “favors” heavier and smaller rigged boats by giving them a few more seconds but I do not know how the adjust their formula. Perhaps one of you guys can tell me which constant is different in the NE formula. The TransPac and Pacific Cup races have developed a “down wind” rating which our YRA has adopted for local “downwind” races such as the Vallejo, Delta Ditch, Jazz Cup and Westport regattas.

George B
2000 Catalina 34 MkII
Alameda, Ca.
GeorgeB is online now  
post #16 of 23 Old 04-08-2019
Administrator
 
Jeff_H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 8,739
Thanks: 33
Thanked 426 Times in 356 Posts
Rep Power: 10
     
Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnewaska View Post
As I know you agree, no one is likely to ever replicate the PHRF rating in real life. At best, one might consider them relative measures between boats, which is also suspect, when the difference is in a few seconds over a mile, IMO. As you also know, a boat with a faster PHRF might very well be slower on any given leg than it's closely rated neighbor.

If one was interested in racing the PHRF game, I get why it matters. As to buying a cruising boat, unless one has no clue that an old bullet proof full keeler is going to drag behind a modern light fin keel, I think they're worthless measures.
At some level I understand your point and agree. From my perspective PHRF isn't all that precise when it comes to saying one boat is genuinely faster. I look at a difference in PHRF rating of less than 12-15 seconds a mile as not sufficiently significant to be a good predictor across a broad range of conditions. One of the short comings of a scoring system with only one single rating for all wind speed and direction is that there are bound to be one trick ponies, that can perhaps only win upwind or perhaps downwind.

To me, in and of itself, any simplified formula is poor provider of useful information whether it is a rating, or motion comfort index, or capsize screen ratio.

In the end it comes down defining the desirable characteristics and then figure out whether a particular purchase candidate is a good design or not based on those characteristics.

Jeff
Minnewaska likes this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Curmudgeon at Large- and rhinestone in the rough, sailing my Farr 11.6 on the Chesapeake Bay

Last edited by Jeff_H; 04-09-2019 at 08:30 AM.
Jeff_H is online now  
post #17 of 23 Old 04-09-2019
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Narragansett Bay
Posts: 19,551
Thanks: 82
Thanked 551 Times in 528 Posts
Rep Power: 11
   
Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimsCAL View Post
I was looking at racer/cruisers in the 32-35 foot range.
As it was going to be daysailed a lot, and with the light LI Sound winds in the summer, performance was important. Boats I looked at had PHRF ratings from about 110 to 160. All were fin keel sloops, some more racer, some more cruiser. The Cal 33-2 I ended up with has a base rating of 132, on the quicker end of the range for her size. I passed on a couple of boats that rated faster, mainly because they were too much racer and more spartan than I wanted.

I certainly agree that a few seconds in rating one way or the other isn't going to drive the decision much at all. But 10 or 20 is enough to notice. And when a boat that is larger, but rates slower, that tells you something meaningful.
Got it, 50 seconds is a big spread. However, as you pointed out, you could already tell which ones were more racer and which were more cruiser, without really seeing the numbers. I'd be curious if you could tell the 110 from the 160, without knowing. I'm sure the difference between the 132 you bought and say a 125 is not as obvious, but I also don't think such a narrow theoretical performance difference would ever be noticed or possibly ever realized. The decision to buy, between those two narrow ratings, would ultimately have nothing to do with the rating, IMO. I'm glad you ultimately found what you wanted. That's all that matters.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Jeanneau 54DS

In the harsh marine environment, something is always in need of repair. Margaritas fix everything.
Minnewaska is offline  
post #18 of 23 Old 04-09-2019
Senior Member
 
chef2sail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 10,009
Thanks: 81
Thanked 181 Times in 173 Posts
Rep Power: 12
 
Send a message via AIM to chef2sail
Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up

As Jim said, it was a determining factor but not the only one. It is one comparative point. A rating though not super exact , is more of an apple to apple comparative of speed ability.

Like Jim I used it to weed out some of the boats when I first bought Haleakula many years ago. I have a feeling Jim and I were looking for similar type boats since he bought a Cal.

Builders put all sorts of names on the 35 ft range of boats . Some call themselves racer cruisers, others cruisers racers, others just racers or cruisers,
There are plenty of racer cruisers which are very spartan for accommodations as Jim mentioned.
There are plenty who really are cruisers but use the racing term as the don’t want to be seen as slow pigs, but really are no where near the racing category. PHRF is one way to differentiate with tru competitive numbers. We all know you can’t look at a boat and say....9oh she’s fast or better yet not slow.

Haleakulas range nationally is between 117-127 depending on the keel and also the set up. One of the other boats at the time I looked at was a Tartan 37, a nice boat. Comparing the ratings average 20 seconds higher rating. Both had great living accommodations, both had great safety attributes,
And many other criteria. The C&C 35 MKIII with CB was a turn quicker and could point higher. That’s what convinced me however I’d have been very happy with the Tartan . The C&C was in better condition . The closest comparative boat was a Sabre 36. Another racer cruiser.

We have had friends with both. All good technical sailors. My thoughts are the PHRF ratings of these 3 comparatively are pretty much what we find when ACTUALlLY sailing them.

To say that the ratings are meaningless is just uninformed but also reflects that racing. Speed may not be a determining factor for the person saying it
BarryL and JimsCAL like this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
___________________________
S/V Haleakala (Hawaiian for" House of the Sun")
C&C 35 MKIII Hull # 76
Parkville, Maryland
(photos by Joe McCary)
Charter member of the Chesapeake Lion posse

Our blog-
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


“Sailing is just the bottom line, like adding up the score in bridge. My real interest is in the tremendous game of life.”- Dennis Conner
chef2sail is online now  
post #19 of 23 Old 04-09-2019
Senior Member
 
BarryL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 2,262
Thanks: 4
Thanked 115 Times in 110 Posts
Rep Power: 17
 
Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up

Hey,

Back in 2012-3 I was looking for a newer 35' ish cruiser / racer. My boat was an O'day 35 with shoal draft and fixed 3 blade prop. Very comfortable and great amenities, but not the best sailing boat. It sailed great on a reach (what boat doesn't?) but would not point at all and was very slow in light air. I had been racing for a few years on a number of different boats and I now knew that I wanted a boat that sailed very well.

PHRF ratings on some boats I was interested in (from PHRF NE region) O'day 35 SD - My Boat - rated around 155

BENETEAU 36.7 78
BENETEAU 36s7 117
C+C 110, 6.0 Draft 84
C+C 99 AL DK 99
HUNTER LEGEND 37 96
J 105 (89sm/150 Lp) 84/90
J 110 96
JEANNEAU 35 SUN ODSY SD 123
SABRE 36-2 105
SABRE 36-2 CB 114
SABRE 36-2 WK 117
TARTAN 3500 117
TARTAN 3500 WK 126

After looking at the numbers I eliminated the Tartan 3500 with wing keel, and the Jeanneau Sun Odyssey. Basically any boat higher than 120 phrf.

In case anyone is still reading, I eliminated the J105 for lack of standing headroom, the C&C 99 for being too small, the Sabers because they were too expensive, the J110 because they're impossible to find, the Bene 36.7 because of the boarding platform and small staterooms.

Eventually I found a nice C&C 110 and there you go.

Lastly, if you are a real cruiser then you should ignore PHRF. IMHO PHRF is really only important for upwind performance. And real cruisers don't sail upwind. If you have a destination that is 20/30/40/50 miles upwind you will be motoring or motorsailing right at your destination. This makes great sense because your VMG will be 6 kts. If you had to sail, even on a fast boat, your VMG would be more like 3.5 kts.

Barry


Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnewaska View Post
Differing opinions are all good. I'm curious how that worked for you. How did you actually use the information to make a decision and how disparate was the PHRF between your choices? Were you only going to buy the fastest PHRF, for example?

In my way of thinking, a few seconds difference is mythical and I would never choose one cruising boat over another for such small margins. Large speed disparities are obvious, without knowing the numbers. I'm genuinely curious how you used it to make a decision.
chef2sail likes this.

Barry Lenoble
Deep Blue C, 2002 C&C 110
Mt. Sinai, NY

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
BarryL is online now  
post #20 of 23 Old 04-09-2019
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 856
Thanks: 33
Thanked 41 Times in 41 Posts
Rep Power: 12
 
Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up

I crewed aboard a sister ship and raced against her. Based upon those observations, it seemed that the boat could not sail to her ratings when equipped with a symetrical spinnaker but was very competitve when sailing with with an asym.

The owner races out of the Hudson but cruises for several weeks each season on LIS, Narraganset Bay and Block Island Sound. He reports very satisfactory performance when cruising with the asym
Hudsonian is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

By choosing to post the reply above you agree to the rules you agreed to when joining Sailnet.
Click Here to view those rules.

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.


User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Upside down boat stand (Or side stand) Jhiggy Gear & Maintenance 7 10-09-2013 12:04 PM
Re: RSVP PLEASE / RSVP PLEASE / RSVP PLEASE / RSVP PLEASE / RSVP NewsReader Mass Bay Sailors 0 02-20-2007 09:15 PM
Rsvp Please / Rsvp Please / Rsvp Please / Rsvp Please / Rsvp Please NewsReader Mass Bay Sailors 0 02-20-2007 06:15 PM
Stand up/Sit down knothead General Discussion (sailing related) 15 11-29-2006 08:41 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome